Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (190315)	6/29/2006 1:39:07 AM
From: RMF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

After 9/11 ANYBODY in the Whitehouse at that time would have gone into Afghanistan. I think they might very well have been much smarter about it. They could first have asked for international support, at least to take advantage of international "goodwill" that we had at the time. We could have insisted that the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan stay out of it and we could have put 150k troops on the ground to secure the country on our own with the help of international troops. With that kind of troop strength we would have been VERY likely to get Osama and the Taliban leader. That kind of saturation troop involvement would probably gotten just about ALL of the Al Quieda and Taliban remnants. We would have kept those troops on the ground to ease reconstruction and bring the ENTIRE country into a more stable era. But we didn't do that. We bought and paid for the Northern Alliance and the local warlords and we let Osama and the Taliban go into Pakistan. We are PAYING for that SCREWUP today. Going into Iraq is another SCREWUP altogether. Now we have two screwups that fester and drain us of money and American lives. So...Hawk...you can see that I'm not against using military force. I'm just against using it so incompetently.